A recent Delaware Supreme Court decision on the Daubert standard suggests an alternative to the notion of courts as evidentiary "gatekeepers," writes SimmonsCooper's William A. Kohlburn. The court ruled not only that epidemiology is not required to prove causation, but also that plaintiffs can overcome adverse epidemiology with other types of reliable scientific evidence. Such an approach would afford toxic tort plaintiffs a fair opportunity to present causation issues to juries, Kohlburn says.
January 30, 2007 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
At least two aspects of the Daubert ruling in Asbestos Litigation could facilitate the opportunity for other toxic tort plaintiffs to get their causation evidence to a jury. First, this decision squarely holds not only that epidemiology is not required to prove causation, but also that plaintiffs can overcome adverse epidemiology with other types of reliable scientific evidence.
METHODOLOGY, NOT CONCLUSIONS
Presented by BigVoodoo
Join General Counsel and Senior Legal Leaders at the Premier Forum Designed For and by General Counsel from Fortune 1000 Companies
This conference brings together the industry's most influential & knowledgeable real estate executives from the net lease sector.
Join the industry's top owners, investors, developers, brokers & financiers at THE MULTIFAMILY EVENT OF THE YEAR!
Duane Morris LLP seeks a highly motivated junior associate to join its dynamic and growing Labor and Employment Class Action group in Chicag...
Duane Morris LLP seeks a full-time staff litigation attorney who has practiced between 3-5 years. Experience will include drafting motions, ...
Duane Morris LLP has an immediate opening for a senior level, highly motivated litigation associate to join its dynamic and growing Employme...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
